Wenlong Ji

Weixin Liang, Yaohui Zhang, Zhengxuan Wu et al. · berkeley, stanford

Scientific publishing lays the foundation of science by disseminating research findings, fostering collaboration, encouraging reproducibility, and ensuring that scientific knowledge is accessible, verifiable, and built upon over time. Recently, there has been immense speculation about how many people are using large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT in their academic writing, and to what extent this tool might have an effect on global scientific practices. However, we lack a precise measure of the proportion of academic writing substantially modified or produced by LLMs. To address this gap, we conduct the first systematic, large-scale analysis across 950,965 papers published between January 2020 and February 2024 on the arXiv, bioRxiv, and Nature portfolio journals, using a population-level statistical framework to measure the prevalence of LLM-modified content over time. Our statistical estimation operates on the corpus level and is more robust than inference on individual instances. Our findings reveal a steady increase in LLM usage, with the largest and fastest growth observed in Computer Science papers (up to 17.5%). In comparison, Mathematics papers and the Nature portfolio showed the least LLM modification (up to 6.3%). Moreover, at an aggregate level, our analysis reveals that higher levels of LLM-modification are associated with papers whose first authors post preprints more frequently, papers in more crowded research areas, and papers of shorter lengths. Our findings suggests that LLMs are being broadly used in scientific writings.

Wenlong Ji, Lihua Lei, Tijana Zrnic

We establish a formal connection between the decades-old surrogate outcome model in biostatistics and economics and the emerging field of prediction-powered inference (PPI). The connection treats predictions from pre-trained models, prevalent in the age of AI, as cost-effective surrogates for expensive outcomes. Building on the surrogate outcomes literature, we develop recalibrated prediction-powered inference, a more efficient approach to statistical inference than existing PPI proposals. Our method departs from the existing proposals by using flexible machine learning techniques to learn the optimal ``imputed loss'' through a step we call recalibration. Importantly, the method always improves upon the estimator that relies solely on the data with available true outcomes, even when the optimal imputed loss is estimated imperfectly, and it achieves the smallest asymptotic variance among PPI estimators if the estimate is consistent. Computationally, our optimization objective is convex whenever the loss function that defines the target parameter is convex. We further analyze the benefits of recalibration, both theoretically and numerically, in several common scenarios where machine learning predictions systematically deviate from the outcome of interest. We demonstrate significant gains in effective sample size over existing PPI proposals via three applications leveraging state-of-the-art machine learning/AI models.

Yaohui Zhang, Haijing Zhang, Wenlong Ji et al.

The advent of large language models (LLMs) offers unprecedented opportunities to reimagine peer review beyond the constraints of traditional workflows. Despite these opportunities, prior efforts have largely focused on replicating traditional review workflows with LLMs serving as direct substitutes for human reviewers, while limited attention has been given to exploring new paradigms that fundamentally rethink how LLMs can participate in the academic review process. In this paper, we introduce and explore a novel mechanism that employs LLM agents to perform pairwise comparisons among manuscripts instead of individual scoring. By aggregating outcomes from substantial pairwise evaluations, this approach enables a more accurate and robust measure of relative manuscript quality. Our experiments demonstrate that this comparative approach significantly outperforms traditional rating-based methods in identifying high-impact papers. However, our analysis also reveals emergent biases in the selection process, notably a reduced novelty in research topics and an increased institutional imbalance. These findings highlight both the transformative potential of rethinking peer review with LLMs and critical challenges that future systems must address to ensure equity and diversity.